Bike Club, 'the world’s first blockchain-based cycling club', launches with 10,000 NFT avatars available to members

Timsen wrote:

I personally don't do Zwift but isn't this a bit like ( i.e just the same as) the Avatars that already exist on there ?

Yes, but this is giving you the opportunity to own - sorry, to "own" your avatar...

henryb wrote:

Quote:

"will also donate a percentage of proceeds to cycling-related charities

So, 0% maybe?

Bike Club wrote:

We're pledging to donate 10% of our revenue from the original mint, plus 10% of the ongoing royalties, to charities that promote safer cycling, build trails, get more people on bikes, and otherwise improve their communities through bicycles.

(That bit only seems to appear on an image, though, so road.cc weren't able to copy and paste it.  )

henryb wrote:

Quote:

"...one of 10,000 unique avatars in the form of non-fungible tokens (NFTs) that he has designed..."

Quote:

"...as far as the avatars are concerned, Bike Club says that each Rider is randomly generated from hundreds of traits"

Hmmm...

I would guess that means he's designed e.g. 6 types of hair, in 8 different colours, 3 types of sunglasses, with 12 different colour frames, etc., and then it randomly picks one variant of each to create an avatar.

mdavidford wrote:

I would guess that means he's designed e.g. 6 types of hair, in 8 different colours, 3 types of sunglasses, with 12 different colour frames, etc., and then it randomly picks one variant of each to create an avatar.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were to do something like this (whatever it is - I still don't understand) I think I'd want my avatar to have a vague resemblance to me and not just be randomly generated.

Yeah - I think the idea is that they generate them, then you get to look at them and (provided no-one else gets there first) pick one you want to buy, rather than just fronting the money and getting something random. It's not particularly clear, though, and to be honest, I'm not interested enough to dig any further!

Crypto means concealed.

Apparently, more energy is used for mining than the whole of Argentina.

https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/crypto/heres-how-much-electricity-it-takes-to-mine-bitcoin-and-why-people-are-worried/

Blockchains are a great technology, but the energy consumption makes it useless in my opinion. (Chia is an alternative which uses disk space instead, but it's still very energy intensive).

hawkinspeter wrote:

Apparently, more energy is used for mining than the whole of Argentina.

https://www.cnet.com/personal-finance/crypto/heres-how-much-electricity-it-takes-to-mine-bitcoin-and-why-people-are-worried/

Blockchains are a great technology, but the energy consumption makes it useless in my opinion. (Chia is an alternative which uses disk space instead, but it's still very energy intensive).

Clever, but as you say hugely wasteful and clearly not "what we need". However the question is always "qui bono" and the answer doesn't always have to be "humans in general". Plenty of things exists because they benefit - or once benefitted - some humans. Or because once they came into existence if you didn't have then you could lose the advantage to others. Note the development and continued presence of nuclear weapons - extremely costly things which haven't been used for their main designed purpose since 1945 and which don't have obvious benefits for most people.

An interesting practical illustration is the "Universal Paperclips" game illustrating the "Paperclip maximizer" thought experiment - think Douglas Adams got there first though in parts of the Hitch Hiker's Guide. ** EDIT Mungecrundle got there first - the Shoe Event Horizon **

I consider these as like a product of an evolutionary arms race. Sometimes competition leads to animals spending inordinate amounts of time / energy or evolving into very odd shapes to either keep ahead of the baddies or keep up with the Joneses.

Let's not confound blockchain with crypto currency mining. The latter makes partly use of the first.

The first is a technology that has benefits in certain applications.

What crypto currencies are concerned, chrisonatrike, it would be fair not only to talk about the benefit that there is for a limited amount of people, but also the detriment it causes for humanity and the planet as a whole.

Yes, things like entertainment activities can also be seen as something that can have a detrimental effect, and may be looked at. But they serve a human need in the first place.

Crypto currencies are currently about trying to make money out of consuming energy and hoping that somebody will spend real money to obtain the digital object they consider to be a form of money.

JL77 wrote:

Let's not confound blockchain with crypto currency mining. The latter makes partly use of the first.

The first is a technology that has benefits in certain applications.

What crypto currencies are concerned, chrisonatrike, it would be fair not only to talk about the benefit that there is for a limited amount of people, but also the detriment it causes for humanity and the planet as a whole.

Yes, things like entertainment activities can also be seen as something that can have a detrimental effect, and may be looked at. But they serve a human need in the first place.

Crypto currencies are currently about trying to make money out of consuming energy and hoping that somebody will spend real money to obtain the digital object they consider to be a form of money.

Good point - blockchain stuff itself is distinct from said mining. But my point about arms races still stands. These things essentially progress under their own power and rationale, not especially because they "serve people". They certainly serve some specific people.

To make an analogy with bikes if you will: we started with no locks, but obviously bikes get stolen, so pretty quickly people started locking them. When enough people lock their bike you're penalised for not doing so because thieves will preferentially steal bikes without locks. Then people get specific bike locks, more secure locks (heavier / better bypass and picking resistance) and again others need to keep up. I'd say where we are now in computer security terms is everyone has locks - and indeed keys - so massive that we need motorbikes to carry them around. And every Sheffield stand has to come equipped with a giant combination lock. Anyone trying to turn back the clock with a lock light enough to be carried on a bicycle now marks themselves as an obvious target. No slowdown in sight, Moore's law still applies and I suspect the rate of increase in use of computing is still increasing.

Sooner or later, someone's going to come along with a quantum angle grinder and render all those locks useless.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Another way to expend stupid amounts of computer energy calculating blockchain equations that produce bugger all benefit to humanity. Douglas Adams (Shoe Event Horizon) would be in awe of our ability to destroy an entire civilisation in the pursuit of virtual wealth.

Thanks - I couldn't remember it but the Shoe Event Horizon I was grasping for in my paperclip post!

chrisonatrike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

Another way to expend stupid amounts of computer energy calculating blockchain equations that produce bugger all benefit to humanity. Douglas Adams (Shoe Event Horizon) would be in awe of our ability to destroy an entire civilisation in the pursuit of virtual wealth.

Thanks - I couldn't remember it but the Shoe Event Horizon I was grasping for in my paperclip post!

I think you just need to have a sense of perspective about these things.

WBoy wrote:

OK I'm getting old, but can somebody please explain what on earth 'blockchain-based' means? In my youth a 1" pitch block chain was something used by Reg Harris.

It's veeeerrry complicated

By the bye, interested in a bridge by any chance?